PSH-19-0024 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On July 12, 2019, an OHA Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should not be restored. The Individual had a history of four alcohol-related arrests, including two recent Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests.  The Individual had also been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, by a DOE Psychiatrist. At the hearing conducted by the AJ, the Individual cited the passage of time since his first two arrests as evidence that the concerns arising from his criminal activity had been mitigated and further contended that his changed lifestyle since the recent birth of one of his children partially mitigated the security concerns under the Adjudicative Guidelines. The Individual further testified that he had an interlock device placed on his vehicle, underwent an alcohol assessment, completed an impaired driver course, and participated in an alcohol intervention counseling program offered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, the Individual admitted that he had not abstained from alcohol or participated in an intensive outpatient treatment program as recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist.  The AJ found that the mitigation provided by these actions is not yet sufficient to resolve the security concerns at issue in the case.  The AJ noted that the Psychiatrist testified that the Individual has not demonstrated rehabilitation and that his prognosis is not good. The AJ found that the Individual has not presented any compelling evidence to the contrary, and that he was convinced that the Individual’s AUD is currently in an active state, since he continues to use alcohol.  Moreover, the AJ found that the Individual’s testimony concerning his modified drinking habits was not credible, in light of the Individual’s minimization of his drinking in the recent past.  Therefore, the AJ concluded, the Individual’s unwillingness or inability to address his AUD raised significant and continuing concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.  For these reasons, the AJ found that the Individual has not satisfied any of the mitigating conditions under Guideline G. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-19-0024 (Steven L. Fine).